Fatal wrote:Perhaps as an improvement, this could be changed to "You are allowed to respond with reasonable equivalent retaliation or intent?" or something along those lines, meaning you can't pull out a weapon and hit someone into crit for it when they punch you once? Seems like it might be an improvement to me, as many real world self defence laws are of similar wording I believe

I should add this though, this has been a problem for awhile.

Forgive me for making yet another policy thread but

How am I supposed to figure out, as a player, what the intent of the other player is, and what the admin online thinks the intent of the other player is, and what the other player and what the admin (of which we have ~40, and new ones weekly) consider "reasonable equivalent" all within half a second of being attacked by another player?

Is it reasonable equivalent or intent to kill a player when they trash my workplace?

To kill a player when they push me down and space my backpack unprovoked?

When they chase me into maint and hit me with a circular saw?

If an assistant randomly starts punching me and I beat them to death am I in trouble now?

Can a player acting in good faith possibly know their options in responding to these situations and ten thousand more all in real time if you add a vague clause like that to the rules?

It all comes down to whether the admin that handles your situation wants to see you shitcanned or not.

Spoiler:

[20:26:02]ADMIN: PM: [censored admin]->[censored]: Welp. It was just a prank bro isn't a very good excuse when it comes to unprovoked nonantag murder, but since this is your first time doing it and you seem to understand the problem instead of a bannu I'm just going to leave you with a warning. Please PLEASE don't do this again in the future, as funny as crackhead broken bottle memes can be. Alrighty? Do you have any input on this?[20:26:39]ADMIN: PM: [censored]->[censored admin]: Alright, no problem. I have some input. Fuck my boy pussy.[20:27:06]ADMIN: PM: [censored admin]->[censored]: Okay then. Have fun.[20:31:29]ADMIN: PM: [censored admin]->[censored]: Excuse me?

Furthermore is there any actual value to splitting hairs over "reasonable equivalent intent" and providing an OOC safety net when an assistant randomly attacks you or smashes up your workplace? If they don't like being dead they shouldn't go around provoking fights.

"Will I get banned protecting myself" is not the kind of paranoia we should have running through the playerbase

I'm not a fan of the idea of people "deserving" to live and play in the round, in other words, everyone has an entitlement to stay in the round. If you start attacking people unprovoked, trashing workplaces, etc, I think you lose that entitlement as you have shown your only intention is to make others angry.

Basically reasonable equivalent is dumb. It should be "start shit get hit" instead.

Stickymayhem wrote:you're right!

Edward Sloan, THE LAWMelanie Flowers, CatgirlBorgasm, Cyborg

Spoiler:

OOC: Hunterh98: to be fair sloan is one of the, if not the, most robust folks on tg

DEAD: Schlomo Gaskin says, "sloan may be a faggot but he gets the job done"

BeeSting12 wrote:I'm not a fan of the idea of people "deserving" to live and play in the round, in other words, everyone has an entitlement to stay in the round. If you start attacking people unprovoked, trashing workplaces, etc, I think you lose that entitlement as you have shown your only intention is to make others angry.

Basically reasonable equivalent is dumb. It should be "start shit get hit" instead.

I think it isn't as clear cut as you describe but I agree people who are obviously only there to make things unfun for others should be spaced with extreme prejudice

It'd be particularly depressing if "you can only respond with equivalent reasonable force" was added because someone tried four separate times to vigilante murder people over moving their own department gear and died for it.

Fatal wrote:Perhaps as an improvement, this could be changed to "You are allowed to respond with reasonable equivalent retaliation or intent?" or something along those lines, meaning you can't pull out a weapon and hit someone into crit for it when they punch you once? Seems like it might be an improvement to me, as many real world self defence laws are of similar wording I believe

I should add this though, this has been a problem for awhile.

To respond to the thing that spawned this thread then, no, don't add (or re-add) this line. Intent in our shitty atmos simulator is incredibly difficult to perceive, from the guy who shoves you and drags you into maint (Murder or just a prank?) to the guy who shoots you with a syringe (deathchem or virus cure?) and this just leads to long ahelp chains with both sides trying to retroactively justify their actions.

It was a key improvement that nuEscalation made, since it was now clear cut: start shit, get hit.

Sure we'll occasionally end up with edge cases where this rule seems to do more harm then good but this wasn't such a case and it would be stupid to half-ass our escalation rules because of one poorly conceived complaint about being murdered by a traitor.

Arianya wrote:It was a key improvement that nuEscalation made, since it was now clear cut: start shit, get hit.

Problem I have been running into has been the old kill-baiting problem returned, someone starts shit and then dunk you when you fighting back or try to defend another person and admin helping just gives you a flat "IC issue" because you threw a punch.

If escalation was judged by some sort of in character roleplay standards it might be easier to enforce.

Problem of de-escalation is still an issue as well, there is no reason to not murder the dude if he is allowed to kill you for punching him.

Arianya wrote:It was a key improvement that nuEscalation made, since it was now clear cut: start shit, get hit.

Problem I have been running into has been the old kill-baiting problem returned, someone starts shit and then dunk you when you fighting back or try to defend another person and admin helping just gives you a flat "IC issue" because you threw a punch.

If escalation was judged by some sort of in character roleplay standards it might be easier to enforce.

Problem of de-escalation is still an issue as well, there is no reason to not murder the dude if he is allowed to kill you for punching him.

If someone starts shit with you and ends up killing you (even if you retaliate!) then they should be trying to revive you, per the escalation policy. If they're not it's an ahelp situation.

And if you're worried about kill-baiting, call security or use non-lethal means (push/shoving). Using "in character roleplay standards" isn't any easier to enforce because it ends up at the old bugbear of identifying intent in our game where a toolbox is a deadly murder weapon that can kill you dead within a few seconds with some good hits.

Gives me an idea, a "de-escalation" point that the character sets in character set up, a question of how ruthless the person is. low levels can mean no harm at all, to critting, to cloning, to no mercy.

That is as far as the character can go against other people and as far as other people can go against them before the escalation is "solved"

info would be listed in security and medical records in an in character way.

person who started shit wouldnt be protected but the person who responds would be protected up to the point of their de-escalation point, going beyond it would mean they are subject to admin reprimand for shittily role-playing and the conflict protection switches to the instigator. So if you want to start and end shit with violence, you dont get any protection, if you show mercy you do get some protection, but you lose it if you roleplay poorly and murder the dude.

It is a shitty, clunky system but it is at least somewhat clearcut and consistant as opposed to Liberarian NAP murderfest that is entirely based on the whims of individual admins that we have now.

Arianya wrote:If someone starts shit with you and ends up killing you (even if you retaliate!) then they should be trying to revive you, per the escalation policy. If they're not it's an ahelp situation.

And if you're worried about kill-baiting, call security or use non-lethal means (push/shoving). Using "in character roleplay standards" isn't any easier to enforce because it ends up at the old bugbear of identifying intent in our game where a toolbox is a deadly murder weapon that can kill you dead within a few seconds with some good hits.

If that is the case then escalation is just shittily enforced. Shit probably should stop at the crit stage and not the death/cloning stage. There is a 100 hp buffer between neutralized and dead that needs to be considered by admins, and soft crit makes that level a bit more obvious. you dont "oops I accidentally the whole murder" someone with a toolbox, it takes actual intent to hit them the extra 6-7 times needed to instakill.

If you believe someone's handling of a ticket was improper to the rules, you should contact the headmins or open an admin complaint.

We can't fix rules being enforced improperly by adding more rules that will still not be enforced properly, and especially not with an awkward, clunky system that tries to blend RP with rapid paced combat.

Kor wrote:How am I supposed to figure out, as a player, what the intent of the other player is, and what the admin online thinks the intent of the other player is, and what the other player and what the admin (of which we have ~40, and new ones weekly) consider "reasonable equivalent" all within half a second of being attacked by another player

are they meant to do all that though

the first thing I think most players who aren't burned out decade old policy thread makers is probably to fight back first, it's a question of what they do later and whether they get outrobusted or not that admins start to get involved in, granted that might not be any less stressful but still

>Is it reasonable equivalent or intent to kill a player when they trash my workplace?admins/most players should know already its ok to dunk invaders

>To kill a player when they push me down and space my backpack unprovoked?any good admin is gonna ask what is in the bag etc and any good player shouldn't be confused about whether they can kill someone or not over an empty bag + internals box

>When they chase me into maint and hit me with a circular saw?pretty obvious

>If an assistant randomly starts punching me and I beat them to death am I in trouble now?deja vu, admins shouldn't be punishing them unless it was one punch and they gibbed and ate the assistant in return and even then, the admin should be asking a lot about the context

>and what the admin online thinks the intent of the other player is,I think an important concept admins need to consider is the art of shouldering things on behalf of players, misunderstandings and misinformation happens, if all admins are different, then all admins need to give some leeway to players, so unless there is some clearcut malice or extreme negligence going on, the players can be assured they're not walking on a tightrope

If someone hits me once out of the blue with lethal damage (punches, toolbox) I try to disarm or run away, if they keep hitting me I fight until they're in crit then I leave them there. If they come back I kill them and hand them over to the chef. This is what I've done the few times it happened to me (unless I died in the fight) and I didn't get banned. One time I did it to one guy who was hitting me with boxing gloves but I didn't realize that because CHAT TOO FAST and non-lethal damage looks the same as lethal on the health bar. He got into crit and came back but we de-escalated and no one was bwoinked.

The problem with taking them to cloning as you can see is that they will almost always come back. The reason is the following: if they're an antag, they're obviously going to come back and kill you because they can. If they're non-antag, they'll come back because they think they're in the right and of course, they're not gonna clone you if they win.

As far as interloping is concerned, I've been instakilled in the past (thank you steven seagal PR) and gibbed for hopping the chef counter, but I've always operated under the assumption that once you break into someone's place you're free game because normal people as opposed to sec don't have a reliable non-lethal way to stop you

of course you should be allowed to respond to implied intent. misdirection and misinformation are a major part of the game. if a traitor hijacks the HoS PDA and tells you that the captain is a ling and you believe it, and the captain takes you aside to his office, and you shoot him, that would be reasonable even though the captain did nothing wrong because you perceived the captain's intent as malicious.

determining if you actually held that intent is up to the investigating admin. admins should make a strong effort to see things from the perspectives of all sides, especially the person who's being bwoinked. you have logs for this to help you with it even further. it's not always clear and sometimes you'll only have the word of the person you're bwoinking to go off of, but in my opinion it's better to let a guilty player go free than to ban an innocent one.

Dr_bee wrote:There is still a big difference between critting and killing. It isnt hard to stop beating a man to death.

It's even easier to not start throwing fists or swinging toolboxes or breaking into departments if you don't want to end up dead.

Sure it's great if a chef refrains from turning the assistant into burgers and takes them to medbay instead, but that shouldn't be an OOC obligation, and players shouldn't, as beesting said, feel entitled to an admin safety net when they start violence.

Which is really what this boils down to, entitlement to get their way. You're not entitled to security arresting someone, and you're not entitled to killing them if security won't arrest them, and you're not entitled to the admin banning them if you fail to kill them, and you're not entitled to changing the rules when the admin won't ban the guy. You're not entitled to be given 3 strikes per round when you go rob someone who is trying to do something else.

Engaging in violence and crime while not an antagonist shouldn't have anything more than a bare minimum of framework of safety to protect people from blatant kill baiting. Violence should be unfair and unpredictable and not have guaranteed outcomes.

Worst case scenario you die in a videogame about getting killed in various stupid ways and just switch servers or respawn as a ghost role anyway.

It is important to remember we are not trying to design a functional society with sane laws and its actually okay for our "citizens" to murder one another. Our rules exist to provide some level of coherence to the violence so it feels meaningful, not to prevent it.

Dr_bee wrote:Gives me an idea, a "de-escalation" point that the character sets in character set up, a question of how ruthless the person is. low levels can mean no harm at all, to critting, to cloning, to no mercy.

That is as far as the character can go against other people and as far as other people can go against them before the escalation is "solved"

info would be listed in security and medical records in an in character way.

person who started shit wouldnt be protected but the person who responds would be protected up to the point of their de-escalation point, going beyond it would mean they are subject to admin reprimand for shittily role-playing and the conflict protection switches to the instigator. So if you want to start and end shit with violence, you dont get any protection, if you show mercy you do get some protection, but you lose it if you roleplay poorly and murder the dude.

It is a shitty, clunky system but it is at least somewhat clearcut and consistant as opposed to Liberarian NAP murderfest that is entirely based on the whims of individual admins that we have now.

Hold up let me check your medical records before I escalate out of your comfort zone. Oh, you don't like any harm at all? Well my gosh, I'm sorry I wasn't supposed to punch you for not giving back my upgraded industrial welder! Next time I'll refrain from punching you.

I have no idea where to start on why this is a bad idea and why this is bad roleplay. This very attitude is like wanting a PvE peaceful mode minecraft experience and then joining the hardcore PvP factions server.

Stickymayhem wrote:you're right!

Edward Sloan, THE LAWMelanie Flowers, CatgirlBorgasm, Cyborg

Spoiler:

OOC: Hunterh98: to be fair sloan is one of the, if not the, most robust folks on tg

DEAD: Schlomo Gaskin says, "sloan may be a faggot but he gets the job done"

Dr_bee wrote:Gives me an idea, a "de-escalation" point that the character sets in character set up, a question of how ruthless the person is. low levels can mean no harm at all, to critting, to cloning, to no mercy.

That is as far as the character can go against other people and as far as other people can go against them before the escalation is "solved"

info would be listed in security and medical records in an in character way.

person who started shit wouldnt be protected but the person who responds would be protected up to the point of their de-escalation point, going beyond it would mean they are subject to admin reprimand for shittily role-playing and the conflict protection switches to the instigator. So if you want to start and end shit with violence, you dont get any protection, if you show mercy you do get some protection, but you lose it if you roleplay poorly and murder the dude.

It is a shitty, clunky system but it is at least somewhat clearcut and consistant as opposed to Liberarian NAP murderfest that is entirely based on the whims of individual admins that we have now.

Hold up let me check your medical records before I escalate out of your comfort zone. Oh, you don't like any harm at all? Well my gosh, I'm sorry I wasn't supposed to punch you for not giving back my upgraded industrial welder! Next time I'll refrain from punching you.

I have no idea where to start on why this is a bad idea and why this is bad roleplay. This very attitude is like wanting a PvE peaceful mode minecraft experience and then joining the hardcore PvP factions server.

Stealing the welder would count as "starting shit" and I am throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks. Kor did a better job refuting my idea, he is right, shouldnt be preventing violence, should just manage it. I still think there should be some other ways to encourage non-violent methods of conflict resolution but I cant think of any.

I might be naive and this might be completely insane but I like to believe that taking the guard rails off escalation policy will encourage non violent solutions.

If you decide you're angry and gonna solve your problems with a toolbox and you end up floating in space with the admins telling you tough shit I'd hope the lesson would be "maybe don't leap to violence if you find the consequences undesirable"

Knowing there is no second chance (revival, the guy you were fighting gets banned, etc) if things go wrong might give people pause next time.

Kill baiting is a minor problem compared to the rising trend of ban baiting. I guess some players no longer derive pleasure from making the other guy as miserable as possible in game so now they try to trick him into getting banned instead.

I forgot Kor hates the word reasonable (for good reason, since it is very vague), my bad.

It was not specifically that I wanted to add the words as it was written, Kor himself has stated that the system has a problem "with ultraviolence." The only way we can change that is by understanding that not every situation is black and white. Some level of different needs to be made between disarming someone and fucking murdering them.

Furthermore, I don't even think that the addition of that will really even change anything since people are going to enforce the rules however they want. At least we can point at something (much like what we do with the current escalation policy) and state that you can't murder someone for insulting you. It may not even be needed in the first place but I will note that leaving an avenue for murdering people for insults in the rules is not very healthy for a game where death has increasingly less permanence.

What level are we going with for someone wronging another player. Seems kind of important as current escalation opens up killing and spacing the person who 'wrongs' you. Normally I'd say apply common sense, but we're well past that point.

yes, if you don't want to get killed by an antag you pretty much have to kill them before they slip you and stun lock you, which means anyone trying to stun you can potentially be a round ending antag, so you literally can't let it slide if you don't want to die

oranges wrote:yes, if you don't want to get killed by an antag you pretty much have to kill them before they slip you and stun lock you, which means anyone trying to stun you can potentially be a round ending antag, so you literally can't let it slide if you don't want to die

I don't really see killing and spacing someone who slips you as being good and prepared though. Rather, just don't get slipped or overreact when someone does it as part of their job (Clown, Janitor). I cite rule 10 because sometimes you get slipped and sometimes the person who does it uses it to kill you. Killing someone AFTER they slipped you doesn't fix the initial slip, they clearly didn't kill you so why choose to do that?

There is NO way to word the escalation policy without having any problems of any sort. Think of it like this, if the policy is "start shit get hit" An assistant gets all access by the captain to use for all his desires and he goes and makes thermite in chemistry. There are two chemists who want to make something with there job. But they can't because an assistant is hogging the machines. The captain clearly allowed the assistant to be there by trusting him enough to have access to wherever he wants. But the chemist also has a desire to do his job, and see's that the assistant is doing wrong. If the chemist throws out the assistant, is that "starting shit?" because the assistant is using a privilege he was given to use for his desire, the way he wanted. Yet the chemist has a conflicting view because he wants to do his job.

So all in all, people are hardwired to think that they're right in every situation ever. That is until a higher power tells them that they are wrong. That is via religion, a justice system. Or a system that punishes them. So escalation will always be a case by case basis for the admins, as two people of equal standing will always have flip-flopped viewpoints. You could be the assistant or the chemist. Maybe you've been both. You usually need a higher power to sort things out though.

BeeSting12 wrote:please write an apology to this forums, this community, the host, and the internet as a whole for the data storage space you wasted with this complaint.

Rev rounds don't count to me personally. Everything is chaotic, rev rounds should just be roundstart delta or something. So people know that it's martial law and any act of aggression against you can be warranted as someone after your life.

BeeSting12 wrote:please write an apology to this forums, this community, the host, and the internet as a whole for the data storage space you wasted with this complaint.

If you are concerned about being "kill baited" then consider calling security, using non lethal means to subdue your opponent, fleeing, or otherwise working things out (talking them down, getting your stolen items replaced, etc)

This part of the rules was meant to imply that disarming/shoving =/= violence I actually did think of that!

I agree with you this thread will likely go nowhere though so I'll put it to rest